Perrodin v. Clement

7 Citing cases

  1. Sprinkle v. Farm Bureau Insurance Companies

    492 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1974)   Cited 5 times

    The workmen's compensation framework comprehends a more flexible attitude toward recovery for injuries than ordinary tort law, and recovery-oriented decisions in workmen's compensation cases, though consistent with the overall approach in that area, are not necessarily indicative of a court's attitude in ordinary personal injury cases. For an indication of the Louisiana courts' attitude toward estoppel to assert prescription in non-workmen's compensation cases we need look no further than three recent decisions cited by appellees: Perrodin v. Clement, 254 So.2d 704 (La.Ct.App. 1971); Gaspard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 243 So.2d 839 (La.Ct.App. 1971); Dagenhart v. Robertson Truck Lines, Inc., 230 So.2d 916 (La.Ct.App. 1970). All three decisions indicate that contra non valentem continues to flourish in Louisiana law, but nothing in them signals any recent flowering of the doctrine beyond its pruned and cropped appearance in Staples.

  2. Corsey v. State Dept. of Corrections

    375 So. 2d 1319 (La. 1979)   Cited 296 times
    Holding that prescription suspended for a prisoner alleging prison officials' negligence caused brain damage that prevented him from understanding what had happened to him and what his legal remedies were

    4 Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 257 So.2d 434 (La. 1972). Perrodin v. Clement, 254 So.2d 704 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1971). Cf., Vance v. Ellerbe, 150 La. 388, 90 So. 735 (1922).

  3. Manion v. Pollingue

    524 So. 2d 25 (La. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 6 times
    In Manion v. Pollinque, 524 So.2d 25 (La.App. 3d Cir.), cert. denied, 530 So.2d 572 (La. 1988), the court held that "[a]ny tort claims against [the attorney for an estate] or [the administrator of an estate] for breach of fiduciary duty would be classified as delictual actions and as such would have prescribed... one year after the judgment of possession was signed."

    Prescription begins to run against an action to reduce an excessive donation on the date that the testament is filed for probate. Draper v. Van Leer, 197 La. 259, 1 So.2d 513 (1941); Succession of Dancie, 191 La. 518, 186 So. 14 (1939); West v. Gajdzik, 425 So.2d 263 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1982); Perrodin v. Clement, 254 So.2d 704 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1971), writ den., 260 La. 604, 256 So.2d 642 (1972). O'Neil Pollingue, Sr. died testate in 1960; his will was filed and probated and a Judgment of Possession was rendered and signed in his succession on October 30, 1962.

  4. West v. Gajdzik

    425 So. 2d 263 (La. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 17 times

    See also In re Andrus, 221 La. 996, 60 So.2d 899 (1952); Roach v. Roach, 213 La. 746, 35 So.2d 597 (1948); Draper v. Van Leer, 197 La. 259, 1 So.2d 513 (1941). Prescription begins to run against an action to reduce an excessive donation on the date that the testament is filed for probate. Draper v. Van Leer, supra; Succession of Dancie, 191 La. 518, 186 So. 14 (1939); Perrodin v. Clement, 254 So.2d 704 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1971), writ denied, 256 So.2d 642 (La. 1972). It is our opinion that the trial court incorrectly characterized plaintiff's action as one for an entire succession.

  5. Corsey v. State, Dept. of Corrections

    366 So. 2d 964 (La. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 5 times

    Our jurisprudence also holds that the doctrine in question is inapplicable to mental incapacity resulting from feeble-mindedness. Perrodin v. Clement, 254 So.2d 704 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1971). Neither does it apply to an irrational plaintiff.

  6. Romero v. Trahan

    345 So. 2d 225 (La. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 1 times
    In Romero, we declined to apply the doctrine of contra non valentem nine years after a testament was presented for probate.

    Prescription on an action to annual a testament begins to run on the date the will was probated. Perrodin v. Clement [La.App.], ( 254 So.2d 704).. Prescription normally would be interrupted by the filing of a suit, L.S.A. C.C. Art. 3518, but the plaintiff's motion to dismiss his suit of February, 1967, had the effect to treating the interruption as having never happened. L.S.A. C.C. Art. 3519.

  7. Israel v. Smith

    302 So. 2d 392 (La. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 3 times
    In Israel v. Smith, 302 So.2d 392 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1974), it is recognized that there is neither statutory nor jurisprudential authority to support the rule that prescription on a claim is interrupted if a defendant negligently causes a plaintiff's mental incapacity.

    Cartwright v. Chrysler Corporation, 255 La. 598 [ 255 La. 597], 232 So.2d 285 (1970). In cases involving mental incapacity; whether feeble mindedness (Perrodin v. Clement, 254 So.2d 704 La.App. 3 Cir. 1971, writ denied 260 La. 604, 256 So.2d 642, 1972); irrationality (Gaspard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 243 So.2d 839 La.App. 3 Cir. 1971, writ denied 258 La. 357, 246 So.2d 680); or institutionalization (Buvens v. Buvens, 286 So.2d 144 La.App. 3 Cir. 1973), there is no interruption of prescription until there is legal interdiction, that is, a formal placing of the person under interdiction. The jurisprudence requiring interdiction accords with Civil Code articles 3522 and 3554 which provide: